U-Kippin' across the universe

Doesn't this UKIP drongo know that Mosques are glass houses and inside them one shouldn't throw stones. What a pillock.

Still, no harm done.

Other than displaying to the brethren therein that we too can display idiots and thus show our ignorance when it comes to voting for lunatics and 'jam today jokers'.

As no-one that was there cares to comment, we rely on the news report,
http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/94058/simon-danczuk-angry-at-ukip-candidates-criticism-of-him-in-local-mosque
From that, it seems to be an internal Mosque event involving swearing and cries of 'racist', only of relevance as something to comment on in electioneering.

Whether UKIP is a racist party or not is an open question, it comes across more as a 'quirky' party. Cries of 'racist' have become meaningless unless there is something definite to back it up.

Reports of how those attempting to stop grooming and sexual exploitation in Rochdale, particularly Rotherham, and many other places, were stopped with veiled threats and cries of 'racist' have completely devalued the term.

Not only devalued it, but turned it around, so suspicion falls on those who cry 'racist' without facts to back it up. They cry 'racist' because they have something to hide and want to divert attention.

The main policy of UKIP seems to be wanting out of the E.U., is that seen as 'racist'? Against what race? Germans, French, europeans in general?

Wanting 'out' of the E.U is not the be-all and end-all of a future for the population of this country. I don't think we should make a move on either in or out until we have seen what transpires over this next 2 years.
The Euro is in danger of collapsing as a currency. It was never meant to be a panacea for all ills and thus to be prescribed for all ills was a huge mistake. IF Europe was one nation (as per the USA etc) then it would work. But being a conglomeration of disparate states with 'ills' from A - Z and with the populace having 'autonomy' within each separate segment (26 in all or thereabouts) it couldn't possibly be beneficial to the whole. It's pure economics as seen through the world markets as they are aligned today and for the foreseeable future. Ergo - for my money (which is thankfully 'pounds sterling) UKIP are a non-entity as they have no policies that are not already covered by other political parties.

UKIP might do well, things do change suddenly in UK politics and way of life from time to time. There is no accounting for what the British public might suddenly take a liking to.

Atlas wrote:Wanting 'out' of the E.U is not the be-all and end-all of a future for the population of this country. I don't think we should make a move on either in or out until we have seen what transpires over this next 2 years.
The Euro is in danger of collapsing as a currency. It was never meant to be a panacea for all ills and thus to be prescribed for all ills was a huge mistake. IF Europe was one nation (as per the USA etc) then it would work. But being a conglomeration of disparate states with 'ills' from A - Z and with the populace having 'autonomy' within each separate segment (26 in all or thereabouts) it couldn't possibly be beneficial to the whole. It's pure economics as seen through the world markets as they are aligned today and for the foreseeable future. Ergo - for my money (which is thankfully 'pounds sterling) UKIP are a non-entity as they have no policies that are not already covered by other political parties.

Describing the USA as one nation may well be a step too large.

I was referring as 'one nation' in the terms of utilising the same currency which if controlled from a central point/market works better when everyone accepts the same nationality (i.e American). I know that there are disparities between States but that is no different than here at home where some things and services are dearer the further South one ventures. The point being 'we' accept our currency and the governance of it and our 'lot'. I can't see any country in Europe, if things go really bad, accepting diktats from Germany or a Strasbourg Parliament any more than would we if we also had the Euro. But I think you already knew that johnb.

The concept of nations is blurred, with nations within nations, and nations across borders. Many identify by economic and/or tribal groupings, literal or cultural, and religions, or not, as much as by nationality.

USA (and for that matter India) have local tax and legislative frameworks which make the concept of 'one nation' very difficult to justify.

Yes. But they consider themselves to all be the same i.e. American or Indian. They have no separate national identity and they have the same currency. Which makes for an easier ride. The Greeks are not the Germans. The Spanish not the French. Therefore when it comes down to negotiation it is easier to iron out the problem. Whereby there are great disparities, self governance/autonomy is usually the answer (although East and West Pakistan didn't quite see it that way) and such often solves things. My point was - all the European countries are not the same either culturally or economically and to bind the all together with a restrictive currency was a grave mistake as has been proven when falsehoods and economic disparities between them emerge. And we must not forget those countries recent histories - a line which will be taken by nationalist parties who seek to fill the political vacuum created by crisis. Sad day - and one that we haven't seen the back of yet.

With Europe under all the pressures in the news today, where does that leave UKIP? If things continue on this tack, leaving Europe starts to look a bit like leaving it to fend for itself when it needs all it's member states to stand together.

Where does that leave UKIP? Hopefully in some garbage truck somewhere foreign along with all the 'nationalist' groups and organisations whose only quest is for personal power and agrandisement.

Europe must either stand or fall upon its own merit. The politicians wanted federalism in a bid to unite and bind the separate countries together. As has been said before, that could only ever work if the motives were pure and altruistic. As we know, and so would anyone with a half a brain, Europe is made up of hundreds of tribes. There are many countries (like our own) who cannot even agree amongst themselves. What hope was there ever with so much disparity and mistrust to begin with. Europe's recent history was against a workable federalism wherein the same currency was the main player. Had the 'project' been tried without a fiscal monitory union it may have stood a chance. It may still do so if a) they allow Greece more leniency due to its particular problems or b) allow those countries that wish, to return to their own currencies. We shall see. Nothing would surprise me - other than this time they got it right!!

The other side of the argument, is that when Europe is in crisis, an independent UK standing alone is in a better position to help the situation. We will have to see how things pan out. Events seem to be happening a bit faster than usual.

I will voice vociferously the same mantra as all others of my generation. WE DID NOT VOTE FOR A FEDERAL EUROPE OR THE ULTIMATE INTENTION OF ONE. We voted for a COMMON MARKET, wherein trade was to be freed up and work available with less strings attached. Given we have had a rope put around our necks by various governments over the past 50 years and been dragged into what is now euphemistically called the EU on the premise that it would be good for us, we are now in the position of having to take sides against federalism. THAT WAS NEVER, I REPEAT, NEVER THE INTENTION.

However given we are now here I would repeat my previous ramblings - we should stay in and re-negotiate to enable a better and more logical outcome for the future. Getting out isn't going to solve anything - the stable door has already shut firmly tight after the horse bolted - . A line should now be drawn across any more countries adding to the burden and for the next fifty years Europe, as now constituted, should level itself out,(if necessary by reverting to one's own currency) bring down those areas that have most and spread the benefits across the whole. We cannot expect to raise the deprived whilst allowing the richer area to continue merrily along their respective ways. That only happens in a fool's paradise. It needs to level down if it is ever to agree amongst itself. Perhaps then, and only then, should the idea of monetary union be resurrected.

This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happy lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

Possibly appropriate in its day when countries were less integrated through populations and trade. Bears no relevance to the modern day and is a tired old mantra of Colonialists and the Empiricist.

Isolationism no longer keeps one strong. Quite the reverse. When man took to the skies the island mentality took flight with it. If there was anything to be learned from my generation is was that seas no longer protect. Sad. But there it is.

Shakespeare might have a point though, the English Channel did make Hitler's armies pause for a while. In fact it stopped them completely. The 'island fortress' aspect of Britain has made it what it is. Good fences make good neighbours.

The Channel won't stop any modern day aggressor. In fact it didn't stop Hitler. He stopped it himself. The reasons were many and varied and as usual with Herr Hitler he made the wrong move pursuing his Social Darwinist mind-set by going after the Slavs. But enough of history (although it teaches us much).
Good fences make good neighbours - well tell that to the Palestinians why don't you. No disrespect but fences are for fencing oneself in. They can never fence others out - not permanently Great wall of China, Hadrians Wall, Berlin Wall, need I go on..
I see where you are coming from and as an obstacle to an aggressor's immediate success our 'moat' still has some use. But it won't stop the 'world' forever.
Meanwhile it gives some breathing space for the right-minded to do the right thing.

Now where did I put those right-minded politicians??? They're around here somewhere. Hmmmm!

New statistics showing huge rise of immigration into the UK, and the rate accelerating, will worry some voters.

Conservative voters may be disappointed with Mr. Cameron's failure to reduce numbers to a manageable level.

Seems probable this news will increase the UKIP vote?

It doesn't need today's chip-paper media news. As has happened in the past, when governments loose the confidence of the people the electorate turn to extremes. It's never a good idea and in some cases leads to blood on the streets and in extreme cases blood across borders and countries. But by then it is too late. Never wish for what you think you want - you might just bloodywell get it.

UKIP doesn't present itself as particularly extremist, it has more the image of wanting to return to a nostalgic, old fashioned view of the UK.

Wouldn't we all - conkers at break time, porridge with salt. Hmmmm!

No political party - none - will sort out the immigration problem. It doesn't matter what UKIP say or what they threaten or what the vast majority of the electorate want. We are fixed into a global community and will go with the tide or suffer the consequences (which will be greater for us than our perceived adversaries) - that trying to stem the flood will incur. 90% of immigration is for economic advantages. 90% will contribute to the good of the whole in one form or another. The 10% that don't we shall have to live with. We hear almost nothing regarding the 90% just the 10%, for that makes good media sales. The scales are out of balance - so what's new??? As the economy grows stronger (in relation to the countries around us) the immigration growth will continue. When the economy starts to fail so will the balance immigration figures fall. It's pure economics. What makes it an issue is that the previous governments have not kept pace with the requirements of a burgeoning population in order to accommodate the increases. If we should wish to ameliorate the problem we should be putting far more emphasis on schools, roads, hospitals and housing and voting for the people we hope will concentrate on those.

Dare say you are right, Atlas, and what could 'sorting out the immigration problem' mean anyway? The UKIP proposal is only to put some controls on it.

UKIP don't seem to be planning or expecting to win at the general election, just hoping for some voice in parliament.

It will be sad to see the damage to what's left of nature and landscape with the roads, housing and so on that will have to be built.

Isn't there supposed to be some sort of in-out referendum coming up about belonging to Europe, or, is that just chatter.

Cameron has always promised that the electorate will have a final voice by way of a referendum but it will only be after re-negotiations on the present rules regarding certain laws -??
Which means IF a conservative government can re-negotiate a proper balance (which ALL the other EU countries have to agree to) on immigration and tax laws etc etc etc then they will put the NEW system to the electorate for their voice on STAYING IN or OPTING OUT. There will be no referendum on the present constitution/situation because the Tory Party are split on the IN's and the OUT's. I strongly suspect the same would be the case with UKIP (had they the seats to form a government) who would require 'friends' in high places to generate a sufficient viable economy to keep them in power - that isn't going to happen for UKIP won't get anywhere this time of next time around. At best they will be a pain in the butt with a coalition and we will get absolutely nowhere with each blaming the other for a lack of progress. And the beat goes on - - - -